A federal judge in New York spiked President Donald Trump’s attempt to block a Manhattan prosecutor from obtaining his tax and financial records from the accounting firm Mazars USA, dismissing his "extraordinary" claim to be immune from criminal investigation.

In a 75-page ruling on Monday, Judge Victor Marrero sharply rejected longstanding Department of Justice opinions that say a president cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office, calling their conclusions "not warranted" or backed up by the authority of the courts.

Advertisement

Marrero said Trump's claim of "absolute immunity" from criminal proceedings is counter to the intent of the framers of the Constitution, who rejected having an executive with the limitless power of an absolute monarch. Marrero described the president's argument as "repugnant to the nation's governmental structure and constitutional values."

In addition, the effort by Trump to scuttle the district attorney’s subpoena would protect any potential accomplices from facing justice while Trump remained in office, Marrero noted — a sweeping claim of immunity that could result in Trump and his allies being above the law. Similar arguments have been soundly and repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court and other federal judges, he noted in his ruling.

"The notion of ... presidential immunity from judicial process that the President here invokes, unqualified and boundless in its reach described above, cuts against the grain of these Constitutional precedents," wrote Marrero, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

Trump’s private legal team immediately filed an “emergency appeal” of the decision to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. And the appeals court quickly issued a temporary stay of Marrero's ruling while proceedings are pending.

The 2nd Circuit’s brief order indicated a three-judge panel would conduct “expedited review” of whether a stay pending the outcome of the appeal is appropriate.

"The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts, so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump," Trump tweeted shortly after the ruling landed. "A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!"

Trump and his attorneys have argued that the subpoena for records, issued by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., is politically motivated and could impinge on Trump's ability to carry out his presidential responsibilities. They have sought relief from the federal courts, arguing New York state courts are not a fair or proper venue.

But Marrero rejected the notion that any evidence suggests Vance Jr.'s subpoena was issued in "bad faith" or that New York courts would now be equipped to adjudicate the president's challenge.

Marrero's most dramatic conclusion, however, may be his charged swipe at the Justice Department's legal guidance that a president cannot be indicted while in office.

"The court is not persuaded that it should accord weight and legal force the president ascribes to the DOJ memos," Marrero wrote.

He noted that the argument a sitting president cannot be indicted often relies entirely on these memos, which don't carry the force of law or legal precedent.

"The theory has gained a certain degree of axiomatic acceptance ... as though their conclusion were inscribed on constitutional tablets so-etched by the Supreme Court," he wrote.

Rather, Marrero said a better balance might be struck between protecting legitimate presidential interests and ensuring justice can be served — either to the president or potential accomplices who would otherwise be shielded from prosecution. He also noted that the DOJ memos only speak to federal prosecution — not state or local.

Marrero's comments on the DOJ memos — which have been a feature of Trump's legal arguments against investigations into him, his company and his associates — are some of the first made by a federal judge. And he noted that the memos based on hypothetical circumstances and "hyperbolic horrors" conjured by DOJ lawyers.

"In fact, not every criminal proceeding to which a President may be subjected would raise the grim specters the DOJ memos portray as incapacitation of the president," he argued.

Marrero also noted that during Watergate, President Richard Nixon did not assert complete immunity from subpoenas, despite his claims that his Oval Office tapes and other records were subject to executive privilege.

The judge also noted that the suit was filed by Trump’s personal lawyers, not the Justice Department — a fact he suggested might undermine Trump’s claims that complying with the subpoena could affect his official duties. The Justice Department did weigh in with a brief last week, supporting the Trump legal team’s position.

“His arguments depend on his status as the sitting president,” Marrero wrote in a footnote. “Whether privately-retained, non-government attorneys accountable only to the President as an individual are entitled to invoke an immunity allegedly derived from the office of the Presidency, raises questions not addressed here,” the judge added, saying the issue was “unnecessary” to resolve given his finding that the Trump team’s arguments were lacking.